by Pa Rock
Citizen Journalist
CNN.com has a feature on its homepage that usually draws my interest. The "Quickvote" is a poll of readers, totally unscientific, that gages opinion on topics of current interest. Topics might range from the craziness of Charlie Sheen or Michele Bachmann to more serious matters like the popular uprisings in the Middle East. Usually these polls are up for the better part of a day and garner a couple of hundred thousand votes.
Today CNN posted a Quickvote question that I found to be really thought-provoking. The question was, in essence, "If you could save lives by going into a damaged nuclear reactor and shutting it down, even if you knew that would cost your own life, would you do it?" Unbelievably, the network pulled that really great question down after only a couple of hours. The vote at the time I ran across the poll was was 51% yes to 49% no with roughly 10,000 votes having been cast.
The question was almost a no-brainer to this old fart who came of age in the sixties. Of course I would, That is ultimately why we are here - to make the world a better place, peacefully. But half of the respondents thought differently.
I would like to see Gallup or some other scientific polling firm take on that same question and then display the demographics of the responders. How would the people who aggressively support nuclear energy respond to the question? What about the "Praise Jeezus and Pass the Ammunition" crowd? Are they even remotely interested in saving others? How does it break down between Democrats and Republicans, between NPR and Fox News listeners, among various religions? How do the opinions of today's twenty-somethings compare to those of their parents - or of their grandparents? Does educational level or net worth make a difference in whether a person would be more likely to make the ultimate sacrifice to save others?
And when all of that gets settled, then we can return to worrying about Lindsay's kleptomania, Bieber's haircut, and Kate's wedding dress!
Citizen Journalist
CNN.com has a feature on its homepage that usually draws my interest. The "Quickvote" is a poll of readers, totally unscientific, that gages opinion on topics of current interest. Topics might range from the craziness of Charlie Sheen or Michele Bachmann to more serious matters like the popular uprisings in the Middle East. Usually these polls are up for the better part of a day and garner a couple of hundred thousand votes.
Today CNN posted a Quickvote question that I found to be really thought-provoking. The question was, in essence, "If you could save lives by going into a damaged nuclear reactor and shutting it down, even if you knew that would cost your own life, would you do it?" Unbelievably, the network pulled that really great question down after only a couple of hours. The vote at the time I ran across the poll was was 51% yes to 49% no with roughly 10,000 votes having been cast.
The question was almost a no-brainer to this old fart who came of age in the sixties. Of course I would, That is ultimately why we are here - to make the world a better place, peacefully. But half of the respondents thought differently.
I would like to see Gallup or some other scientific polling firm take on that same question and then display the demographics of the responders. How would the people who aggressively support nuclear energy respond to the question? What about the "Praise Jeezus and Pass the Ammunition" crowd? Are they even remotely interested in saving others? How does it break down between Democrats and Republicans, between NPR and Fox News listeners, among various religions? How do the opinions of today's twenty-somethings compare to those of their parents - or of their grandparents? Does educational level or net worth make a difference in whether a person would be more likely to make the ultimate sacrifice to save others?
And when all of that gets settled, then we can return to worrying about Lindsay's kleptomania, Bieber's haircut, and Kate's wedding dress!
3 comments:
America is show a much higher than typical sensitivity to the struggles the Japanese people are enduring. I suspect polite minds decided this question was too close to the edge of decency.
Strangely enough I found myself pondering the question by my lonesome yesterday.
It makes no sense to take the fine flower of society out of their young lives and send them to certain death, especially a lingering and painful demise.
If the reactor core was damaged at my local nuclear power plant (Burlington, Kansas) it makes more sense to have me go in than send in some bright person whose whole life lays ahead.
Interesting hypothetical push poll. But I question whether the results are true. People want to be seen as likable and altruistic. I really doubt if, in a real situation, half of the people would be willing to shut down the reactor. In most cases, people panic and become hyper-selfish. You can see this in studies that have been done on holocaust survivors and prison camp survivors.
I asked myself the same question over the last couple of days...as we all probably have...
It is a tough one...
Okay, not so tough sitting on my comfy couch - of course I would go in...
But shoot me on the way out so I do not have to suffer for what I did...
And please do not think of sending anyone else in that I love...
God bless those brave workers.
Post a Comment